DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 28-30, 36-37, 39, and 45, and added new claim 47. Thereby making claims 28-34, 36-45, and 47 pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments with respect to Yamaguchi and claim 28 are not persuasive because the claims do not positively recite the features which applicant is arguing; Yamaguchi is still used to rejected claim 28. Applicant arguments with respect to Yamaguchi and claims 36-37 and 45 are persuasive in view of “a lateral access opening” limitation; however, as stated above, a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 37 was amended to include “at least one electrical terminal … having a top surface”. Claim 38 further recites “the at least one electrical terminal includes a terminal top surface”, which appears to be redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-34, 36-45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 28 and 37 recite similar features that are considered new matter (features in parenthesis belong to claim 37). Both claims require the lower surface of the removable protective plate is positioned above the top surface of the electrical terminal by a clearance distance less than a vertical removal distance required to remove a ring-type electrical connector from the electrical terminal, the clearance distance providing (a lateral) access (opening) for (or configured to permit) temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal (with the protective plate secured to the shell) while preventing removal of the ring-type connector. It appears the claim language attempts to define the distance between the lower surface of the removable protective plate and the top surface of the electric terminal by two parameters, i.e., “a clearance distance” and “a vertical removal distance”; however, these parameters are not positively recited with respect to the other structural features in the claim, and are limited by intended use limitations or limitations not previously disclosed/defined in the disclosure, hence considered new matter. For examples, the vertical removal distance is related to a distance required to remove a ring-type electrical connector from the terminal; however, the instant disclosure does not show or describe the intended use of a “vertical removal distance” and does not show or describe the dimensions of a ring-type electrical connector, thereby making the dimensions of the “vertical removal distance” new matter. The “clearance distance” is defined as “providing access for temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal while preventing removal of the ring-type connector”; besides the instant disclosure lacking a description of “clearance distance”, let alone the intended use thereof, since the ring-type connector dimensions are not described in the disclosure or claim, the features related to the clearance distance are also new matter.
Claims 30-34, and 36-45 depend from either claim 28 or 37, thus also rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 30 and 39 appears to recite new matter. The claims recite “the fastener comprises a tamper-resistant locking fastener having a tool engagement interface having a non-circular drive geometry configured to mate with a complementary key, the interface lacking drive surfaces configured to engage a flat-blade screwdriver, Phillips screwdriver, open- end wrench, or box wrench”. It appears “a tamper-resistant locking fastener” is supported by “anti-theft fastening elements”, and the tool engagement interface configured to mate with complementary key is supported in the disclosure as “heads with unique socket patterns that require a key with a matching head pattern”, see e.g., published [0048] and clam 9. However, the further limiting “non-circular drive geometry” is not supported by the disclosure, hence new matter. Further, while the instant disclosure seems to imply the socket pattern in the locking element is not found in conventional hand tools, specific hand tools such as those recited in the claimed (flat blade screwdriver, Phillips screwdriver, open-end wrench, box wrench) are not recited in the disclosure, hence also considered new matter.
Claim 47 recites a “clearance distance insufficient to permit removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal by movement perpendicular to the shell”. The instant disclosure does not appear to show or describe a “a clearance distance” (it is unclear whether the top of the terminal contacts the plate or if there is some distance therebetween), or that the clearance distance is “insufficient to permit removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal by movement perpendicular to the shell”, hence claim 47 includes new matter. Claim 47 is interpreted based on instant para. [0047] which describes the top plate covers the battery cable connectors attached to the battery terminals to prevent the battery cable from being removed from the battery.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 limits the shape of the terminal (i.e., threaded); since threaded terminals do not accept ring-type electrical connectors, rather ring type electrical connectors are place on cylindrical posts (claim 31), it is unclear how the features of claim 28 (i.e., clearance distance and vertical removal distance, which are define by a ring-type electrical connector) apply to claim 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 28-29 and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (JP 2001/250525, of record), hereinafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding Claim 28, Yamaguchi suggests a battery assembly comprising: a battery including a shell (21) having an exterior surface (i.e., the surface from which terminal 50(12) extends, see Figs. 8-9); at least one electrical terminal (50) extending from the shell and having a top surface (i.e., top surface shown in Fig. 9); at least one fastening element (e.g., hole which receives screw 28) integrated into the shell (21, see Fig. 2) and positioned adjacent to the at least one electrical terminal (Figs. 2, and 9); a removeable protective plate (23) having an upper surface and a lower surface (i.e., both surface are visible in Figs. 3-5 or 8), the removeable protective plate (23) secured to the shell (21) with a fastener (screw) received within the fastening element (hole, see e.g., Figs. 1-2). Yamaguchi suggests the lower surface of the removable protective plate 23 is positioned above the top surface of the electrical terminal (see e.g., Fig. 9) by a clearance distance (labelled CD in annotated Fig. 9, CD having a distance represented by a solid line in annotated Fig. 9 and is defined as the distance between the lower surface of plate 23 and the top surface of the terminal 50) less than a vertical removal distance (labelled VRD in annotated Fig. 9 and defined as a sum (i.e., A+B) of the height of the ring connector 51 (i.e., B, long dashed line) and the distance between a bottom of the ring connector to the top surface of the terminal (i.e., A dashed line); the sum (A+B) defines VRD because for the bottom of the ring connector to clear the top surface of the terminal (hence, removal of the ring connector from the terminal), the bottom of the ring-type electrical connector 51 must travel a sum of a distance A and a distance B).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With plate 23 on the shell, the clearance distance is configured to provide access for temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal (i.e., Fig. 9 appears to show a space (represented by a distance CD), hence is configured to enable access to the terminal 50 for temporary electrical contact) while preventing removal of the ring-type connector (i.e., provided CD is less than VRD, CD prevents the clearance of the ring connector off the terminal).
Regarding Claim 29, Yamaguchi suggests the shell includes a surface surrounding the electrical terminal that supports the removable protective plate 23 above the terminal top surface (i.e., the edges at the circumference of plate 23 are supported by the walls of the shell 21, see Figs. 2, 5, 9).
Regarding Claim 31, Yamaguchi suggests the electrical terminal comprises a cylindrical post electrical terminal, see e.g., Figs. 5 and 9.
Regarding Claim 32, Yamaguchi suggests the electrical terminal includes a threaded electrical terminal, see Figs. 5 and 8.
Regarding Claims 33-34, Yamaguchi suggests the fastening element comprises an internally threaded boss molded into the shell (e.g., holes in corners of 21 are threaded in view of the threaded fasteners 28 embedded in the shell) and a threaded insert (28) embedded in the shell, see Figs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (cited above) in view of Perry et al. (US 2018/0034068, of record), hereinafter Perry.
Regarding Claims 30, Yamaguchi suggests the fastener comprises a tamper-resistant locking fastener (i.e., in the absence of the correct screwdriver, tampering is prevented, hence the fastener is tamper-resistant) having a tool engagement interface (i.e., +) having geometry (i.e., a Phillips head geometry) configured to mate with a complementary key (i.e., Phillips head screwdriver). Perry suggests a more effective tamper-resistant locking fastener (i.e., a security screw, in lieu of conventional screws) having a tool engagement interface configured to receive a corresponding key (i.e., matching tool), the interface being configured such that rotation of the fastener cannot be achieved using a conventional screwdriver or wrench, thereby deterring theft, see e.g., Figs. 6, 8, 9, and [0008, 0022-0025, 0030, 0046-0052]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the fastener of Yamaguchi is a tamper-resistant locking fastener (security screw) having a tool engagement interface configured to receive a corresponding key (matching tool), such the interface lacks the drive surface configured for a flat blade screwdriver, a Phillips head, etc., with the expectation of deterring/minimizing theft, as suggested by Perry.
Claim(s) 36-38, 40-45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (cited above) in view of Ching (US 5,283,137) and Johnson et al. (WO 2004/088771), hereinafter Ching and Johnson.
Regarding Claim 36, Yamaguchi does not suggest the protective plate and the shell define a lateral access opening extending toward the electrical terminal, such that the lateral access opening is sized to permit engagement of the electrical terminal by a temporary electrical contact device while preventing passage of the ring-type electrical connector over the electrical terminal. However, Ching suggests a battery assembly 40 with a cover 12 on the top thereof; openings (32, 34, 33, 35) sized to provide limited access to the terminals are provided on the cover 12 and permit selective electrical testing of the battery assembly without removal of the cover (cols. 3-4). Further, Johnson suggests a battery whose terminals (Fig. 1A-1D) are covered by a battery cover (200, 400, Figs. 5-6) to prevent an electric shock hazard, thereby reducing the possibility of battery explosion by accidental shorts ([0022]); the battery includes a lateral access opening (e.g., 222, 224, etc.) to vent gases away from the terminals ([0007, 0020] claim 2) and for receiving cables that connect to the battery terminals ([0017], Figs. 5-6). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the protective plate and shell of Yamaguchi defines a lateral access opening extending toward the electrical terminal with the expectation of allowing gas venting, and to permit selective electrical testing of the battery assembly without the necessity of removing the protective plate; in view of the foregoing, the prior art suggests the lateral access opening being sized to permit engagement of the electrical terminal by a temporary electrical contact device.
Moreover, Ching suggests the openings are sized to permit limited access to the terminals for selective electrical testing, while Johnson recognizes covering the terminals prevents electric shock through unintended contact with the terminals; it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to maximize coverage of the terminals by the protective plate and to minimize the size of the lateral access opening to reduce the possibility of electric shock while only permitting selective electrical testing. In maximizing the coverage of the terminals, while minimizing the size of the lateral access opening, access to the ring type connector of Yamaguchi is also minimized, thereby making access to the ring type connector more difficult. Johnson has realized the advantage of keeping the terminals covered with the protective plate to prevent unintended shorts. Yamaguchi would appreciate holding the protective plate close to the terminals and even minimize the distance between the protective plate and the top of the terminals (i.e., the clearance distance) to protect the terminals from unintended shock hazards. In minimizing the clearance distance to prevent shock hazards, one of ordinary skill in the art would reach a distance expected to prevent the passage of the ring type electrical connector over the electrical terminal.
Regarding Claims 37 and 44, Yamaguchi suggests a battery assembly for a vehicle comprising: a battery shell; at least one electrical terminal located on an exterior surface of the shell and having a top surface; a ring-type electrical connector electrically connected to the electrical terminal; at least one fastening element integrated into the shell and positioned adjacent the terminal; a removeable protective plate having an upper surface and a lower surface, the removeable protective plate secured to the shell with a fastener received within the fastening element, wherein the lower surface of the removable protective plate is positioned above the top surface of the electrical terminal, see rejection of claim 1. As noted in the rejection of claim 1, Yamaguchi suggests a vertical removal distance and a clearance distance, where in the clearance distance is less than a vertical removal distance.
Yamaguchi does not suggest the clearance distance provides a lateral access opening configured to permit temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal with the protective plate secured to the shell while preventing removal of the ring-type connector. However, Ching suggests a battery assembly 40 with a cover 12 on the top thereof; openings (32, 34, 33, 35) sized to provide limited access to the terminals are provided on the cover 12 and permit selective electrical testing of the battery assembly without removal of the cover (cols. 3-4). Further, Johnson suggests a battery whose terminals (Fig. 1A-1D) are covered by a battery cover (200, 400, Figs. 5-6) to prevent an electric shock hazard, thereby reducing the possibility of battery explosion by accidental shorts ([0022]); the battery includes a lateral access opening (e.g., 222, 224, etc.) to vent gases away from the terminals ([0007, 0020] claim 2) and for receiving cables that connect to the battery terminals ([0017], Figs. 5-6). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the clearance distance provides a lateral access opening with the expectation of allowing gas venting, and to permit selective electrical testing of the battery assembly without the necessity of removing the protective plate. The modification of Yamaguchi with Ching and Johnson suggests the lateral access opening is configured to permit temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal with the protective plate secured to the shell while preventing removal of the ring-type connector from the terminal (removal of the connector is prevented because access to the connector is made difficult through the blocking nature of the protective plate)
Regarding Claim 45, Yamaguchi as modified by Ching and Johnson (see rejection of claims 1 and 37) suggests the protective plate and the shell define a lateral access opening extending toward the electrical terminal (in view of Ching and Johnson set forth under the rejection of claims 1 and 37), the lateral access opening being sized to permit engagement of the electrical terminal by a temporary electrical contact device and preventing passage of the ring-type electrical connector over the electrical terminal since the protective plate is place on top of the terminal. Specifically, Johnson has realized the advantage of keeping the terminals covered with the protective plate to prevent unintended shorts. Yamaguchi would appreciate holding the protective plate close to the terminals and even minimize the distance between the protective plate and the top of the terminals to protect the terminals from unintended shock hazards. In minimizing the distance between the lower surface of the protective plate and the top surface of the terminal to prevent shock hazards, one of ordinary skill in the art would reach a distance expected to prevent the passage of the ring type electrical connector over the electrical terminal.
Regarding Claim 38, Yamaguchi suggests the shell includes a surface surrounding the electrical terminal that supports the removable protective plate 23 above the terminal top surface (i.e., the edges at the circumference of plate 23 are supported by the walls of the shell 21, see Figs. 2, 5, 9).
Regarding Claim 40, Yamaguchi suggests the electrical terminal comprises a cylindrical post electrical terminal, see e.g., Figs. 5 and 9.
Regarding Claim 41, Yamaguchi suggests the electrical terminal includes a threaded electrical terminal, see Figs. 5 and 8.
Regarding Claims 42-43, Yamaguchi suggests the fastening element comprises an internally threaded boss molded into the shell (e.g., holes in corners of 21 are threaded in view of the threaded fasteners 28 embedded in the shell) and a threaded insert (28) embedded in the shell, see Figs.
Regarding Claim 47, Yamaguchi suggests a battery assembly comprising: a battery including a shell (21); an electrical terminal (50) extending from the shell; an electrical connector (51) attached to the electrical terminal (50); a blocking structure (23) positioned above the electrical connector (see Figs.).
Yamaguchi does not suggest the blocking structure defines a lateral access opening configured to permit temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal while preventing removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal. However, Ching suggests a battery assembly 40 with a cover 12 on the top thereof; openings (32, 34, 33, 35) sized to provide limited access to the terminals are provided on the cover 12 and permit selective electrical testing of the battery assembly without removal of the cover (cols. 3-4). Further, Johnson suggests a battery whose terminals (Fig. 1A-1D) are covered by a battery cover (200, 400, Figs. 5-6) to prevent an electric shock hazard, thereby reducing the possibility of battery explosion by accidental shorts ([0022]); the battery includes a lateral access opening (e.g., 222, 224, etc.) to vent gases away from the terminals ([0007, 0020] claim 2) and for receiving cables that connect to the battery terminals ([0017], Figs. 5-6). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the blocking structure (23) of Yamaguchi defines a lateral access opening with the expectation of allowing gas venting, and to permit selective electrical testing of the battery assembly without the necessity of removing the blocking structure. The modification of Yamaguchi with Ching and Johnson suggests the lateral access opening is configured to permit temporary electrical contact with the electrical terminal; since removal of the blocking structure is not necessary for selective electrical testing and/or undesirable due to incidents of shock hazard, one would be motivated to keep the blocking structure connected to the shell; in keeping the blocking structure connected to the shell, access to the terminals is somewhat blocked, thereby making access to the terminals and removal to the electrical connector more difficult; thus, the modification of Yamaguchi with Ching and Johnson suggests the blocking structure prevents removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal by making it more difficult to access the terminals to remove the electrical connector.
Further, Ching appreciates that the openings are sized to permit limited access to the terminals for selective electrical testing, while Johnson recognizes covering the terminals prevents electric shock through unintended contact with the terminals; it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to maximize coverage of the terminals by the cover and to minimize the size of the lateral access opening to reduce the possibility of electric shock while only permitting selective electrical testing. In maximizing the coverage of the terminals to reduce incidents of shock, while minimizing the size of the lateral access opening to only permit selective testing, access to the ring type connector (hence ability to remove the connector) of Yamaguchi is also minimized, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to prevent removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal.
Yamaguchi shows the blocking structure is spaced from the electrical terminal by a clearance distance, but it is unclear whether said distance is insufficient to permit removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal by movement perpendicular to the shell. However, Johnson has realized the advantage of keeping the terminals covered with the blocking structure to prevent unintended shorts. Yamaguchi would appreciate holding the blocking structure close to the terminals and even minimize the distance between the blocking structure and the top of the terminals (i.e., the clearance distance) to protect the terminals from unintended shock hazards. In minimizing the clearance distance to prevent shock hazards, one of ordinary skill in the art would reach a distance insufficient to permit the removal of the electrical connector from the terminal by a movement perpendicular to the shell, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to prevent removal of the electrical connector from the electrical terminal.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, Ching, and Johnson (cited above) in view of Perry et al. (US 2018/0034068), hereinafter Perry.
Regarding Claim 39, Yamaguchi suggests the fastener comprises a tamper-resistant locking fastener (i.e., in the absence of the correct screwdriver, tampering is prevented, hence the fastener is tamper-resistant) having a tool engagement interface (i.e., +) having geometry (i.e., a Phillips head geometry) configured to mate with a complementary key (i.e., Phillips head screwdriver). Perry suggests a more effective tamper-resistant locking fastener (i.e., a security screw, in lieu of conventional screws) having a tool engagement interface configured to receive a corresponding key (i.e., matching tool), the interface being configured such that rotation of the fastener cannot be achieved using a conventional screwdriver or wrench, thereby deterring theft, see e.g., Figs. 6, 8, 9, and [0008, 0022-0025, 0030, 0046-0052]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the fastener of Yamaguchi is a tamper-resistant locking fastener (security screw) having a tool engagement interface configured to receive a corresponding key (matching tool), such the interface lacks the drive surface configured for a flat blade screwdriver, a Phillips head, etc., with the expectation of deterring/minimizing theft, as suggested by Perry.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights